Zombie | Minor Zombie

[Arondight]

I like this card a lot. I personally think it could do without the quanta absorption.. or maybe just lower the amount to 1 . It's not like it damages anything without support because it acts like the support itself. But if a small amount of attack was added (1 or 2), then I think the absorption would be sound. Perhaps the normal Zombie should have a lot more HP and some attack with a higher cost?

[johannhowitzer]

Idea... fill middle row with vultures and other stuff, fractal a few zombies, add flood, enjoy... 

Would require trio w/lots of quanta, but still... *dreams* 

If they ever make a FG on that concept, you can bet a lot of FG rainbows will start running gravity shield.

[melzardust]

I like this card a lot. I personally think it could do without the quanta absorption.. or maybe just lower the amount to 1 . It's not like it damages anything without support because it acts like the support itself. But if a small amount of attack was added (1 or 2), then I think the absorption would be sound. Perhaps the normal Zombie should have a lot more HP and some attack with a higher cost?

I think you missed the concept there... 

[Arondight]

I like this card a lot. I personally think it could do without the quanta absorption.. or maybe just lower the amount to 1 . It's not like it damages anything without support because it acts like the support itself. But if a small amount of attack was added (1 or 2), then I think the absorption would be sound. Perhaps the normal Zombie should have a lot more HP and some attack with a higher cost?

I think you missed the concept there... 

No, I didn't. It's way too similar to a Phoenix to not to make the comparison. It would just allow a more broader spectrum for the card for both attack and support. But, maybe you missed my point with my suggestion there...  Or maybe your mind omitted the part where I suggested to add some attack, did you read it properly?

[melzardust]

I like this card a lot. I personally think it could do without the quanta absorption.. or maybe just lower the amount to 1 . It's not like it damages anything without support because it acts like the support itself. But if a small amount of attack was added (1 or 2), then I think the absorption would be sound. Perhaps the normal Zombie should have a lot more HP and some attack with a higher cost?

I think you missed the concept there... 

No, I didn't. It's way too similar to a Phoenix to not to make the comparison. It would just allow a more broader spectrum for the card for both attack and support. But, maybe you missed my point with my suggestion there...  Or maybe your mind omitted the part where I suggested to add some attack, did you read it properly?

Except the fact that adding a lot more hp, as you said, would mean you less often benefit from the death.

[GG]

what if i make the unuped zombie just like a normal creature with normal attacks and stuff?

problems
1. death already has 3 middle level attacking monsters (flesh spider, gargoyle, mummy)
2. the two cards would be wayy too apart in concept

[melzardust]

what if i make the unuped zombie just like a normal creature with normal attacks and stuff?

problems
1. death already has 3 middle level attacking monsters (flesh spider, gargoyle, mummy)
2. the two cards would be wayy too apart in concept

gargoyle is  .

Still, i agree.

[Arondight]

I like this card a lot. I personally think it could do without the quanta absorption.. or maybe just lower the amount to 1 . It's not like it damages anything without support because it acts like the support itself. But if a small amount of attack was added (1 or 2), then I think the absorption would be sound. Perhaps the normal Zombie should have a lot more HP and some attack with a higher cost?

I think you missed the concept there... 

No, I didn't. It's way too similar to a Phoenix to not to make the comparison. It would just allow a more broader spectrum for the card for both attack and support. But, maybe you missed my point with my suggestion there...  Or maybe your mind omitted the part where I suggested to add some attack, did you read it properly?

Except the fact that adding a lot more hp, as you said, would mean you less often benefit from the death.

Yeah, of course, because it's not a Minor Zombie, it should at least have more HP. If the HP stayed the same with added attack, I would think it was better than the upgraded version. As it is now, there's only a paper thin difference between the upgraded and nonupgraded version in my view.

[johannhowitzer]

Still needs a nerf since this is a renewable Spark.  More HP might be an option.

"Paper thin difference" is inaccurate, I think.  Upgrading increases the death rate by 50%.  In the space of ten turns, unupped you get three deaths, while upped you get five.

[Arondight]

Still needs a nerf since this is a renewable Spark.  More HP might be an option.

"Paper thin difference" is inaccurate, I think.  Upgrading increases the death rate by 50%.  In the space of ten turns, unupped you get three deaths, while upped you get five.

Judging from the mechanics in the game, it actually would take more turns. It cycles through the effects of all creatures and doesn't back track to activate the poison after it respawns. As far as the game is concerned, the turn has already ended for the creatures that already had their effects triggered. One example is how a Minor Phoenix dies at the end of your turn from a Fire Shield | Fire Buckler, yet you can't change the Ash immediately back into a Minor Phoenix when your turn comes by again.

[melzardust]

this is a passive effect and is treated different than an active effect, no revive ash, only pay quants to keep.

[Arondight]

this is a passive effect and is treated different than an active effect, no revive ash, only pay quants to keep.

It doesn't matter if it's different, it doesn't cycle back to damage the zombie with poison. Thus, the point is that it takes more turns to die after it dies the first time.